Back to search

Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv v. RELIENCE GEN INS CO LTD & ORS

Delhi High Court · 18 Feb 2026 · 2026:DHC:1468

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

2026:DHC:1468

Full Text

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 1 of 10
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th February, 2026

MAC.APP. 1004/2018
SANGITA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.

VERSUS

RELIENCE GEN INS CO LTD & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev M. Roy and Mr. P.
Srinivasan, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J: (ORAL)

1. This appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of compensation awardedby MotorAccidentsClaims Tribunal [‘MACT’], Rohini Courts (hereinafter, ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No. 4955/16 awarding Rs.8,14,000/-along with 9% interest vide award dated 10th March 2017 (hereinafter, ‘impugned award’)

2. The accident occurred on 07th April2012at about07:30 p.m., when theinjured/Sangita aged 9 years, travelling with Pooja on a motorcycle driven by Kuldeep, werehit by theoffending tractordriven by respondent no.2/Mohd. Samir(driver)comingfrom the wrong side. Injured/Sangita was removed to SanjayGandhiMemorialHospital, and thereafter, shifted to SafdarjungHospital wheresheremained hospitalized for five days. On account oftheaccident, she suffered 61% permanentdisability in relation to her whole body and functional disability was taken at 55% by the MAC.APP. 1004/2018 2 of 10 Tribunal.

3. Mr. Anshuman Bal, Counsel for appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal on the grounds that firstly, non-pecuniary damages were granted on the lesser side and were inadequate considering the injury; secondly, loss of futureearnings was calculatedby takingnotionalincome of Rs.15,000/-, which was calculated based on the Second Schedule and relying upon a decision of this Court in Chetan Malhotra v. Lala Ram, 2016:DHC:3863 using the Inflation Correction Method, which should otherwisehavebeen taken as minimum wages ofa skilled worker;thirdly, theTribunalhas adopted a multiplier of 10, whereas, a multiplier of 18 should have been taken considering that the appellant/claimant was a minor child at the time of accident.

4. To support his contentions, Counsel for appellant/claimant has relied upon decisions of Supreme Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors. (2020) 4 SCC 413, Abhimanyu Partap Singh v. Namita Sekhon, (2022) 8 SCC 489 and Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 7 SCC 738.

5. This position asserted by Counsel for appellant/claimant/minor child is acceptablesince a view has been taken by a Predecessor Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanju & Ors. 2025:DHC:11781 and followed by this Court in Tata AIG General Insurance Company v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. 2026:DHC:756 and in subsequentjudgments of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vishnudev Sah & Ors. 2026:DHC:1266and RekhaDevi & Anr. v. Bechan Yadav& Ors. 2026:DHC:805. MAC.APP. 1004/2018 3 of 10

6. As regards, the issue of benchmark income, this Court in Sanju (supra) assessed Kajal(supra)and a line of judgments relyingupon Kajal to arriveat theconclusion that notionalincome in cases of fatal accidents involving minors cannot be taken as static and minimum wages of a skilled worker of the concerned state would have to be taken. Relevant observations of the Court are extracted as under:

“10. The first of these cases was Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, which was a case of injury inflicted upon a child of 12 years of age. The Court computed loss of future income on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled worker, reasoning as follows: “20. Both the courts below have held that since the girl was a young child of 12 years only notional income of Rs 15,000 p.a. can be taken into consideration. We do not think this is a proper way of assessing the future loss of income. This young girl after studying could have worked and would have earned much more than Rs 15,000 p.a. Each case has to be decided on its own evidence but taking notional income to be Rs 15,000 p.a. is not at all justified. The appellant has placed before us material to show that the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman is Rs 4846 per month. In our opinion, this would be the minimum amount which she would have earned on becoming a major. Adding 40% for the future prospects, it works to be Rs 6784.40 per month i.e. 81,412.80 p.a. Applying the multiplier of 18, it works out to Rs 14,65,430.40, which is rounded off to Rs 14,66,000.” 11. The judgment in Kajal was followed in Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Minor Roopa v. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, which were all also cases where minor victims had suffered debilitating injuries. 12. This line of judgments has recently been reiterated in

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 4 of 10 Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. Bababhai Nagjibhai Rabari, which was once again an injury case. The Supreme Court held therein as follows:

“9. On the aspect of monthly income of the minor appellant, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order of the Courts below. In the present case, it is evident that the Courts below have failed to take into account the monthly income of the appellant while determining the quantum of compensation. It is now a well-entrenched and consistently reiterated principle of law that a minor child who suffers death or permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident, cannot be placed in the same category as a non- earning individual for the purposes of assessing the amount of compensation because the child was not engaged in gainful employment at the time of the accident. In such a case, the computation of compensation under the head of loss of income ought to be made by adopting, at the very least, the minimum wages payable to a skilled workman as notified for the relevant period in the respective State where the cause of action arises. The said observation was rendered by this Court, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr … 15. For the purpose of emphasis, it is again clarified here that when a Tribunal or the High Court in appeal, is concerned with the case involving a child having suffered injury or having passed away, the calculation of loss of income necessarily has to be made on the matric of minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the respective State at the relevant point of time. It is our hope that this restatement helps avoiding such errors and thereby obviates the necessity of this Court’s interference, applying well-established principles of law.” (emphasis added)

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 5 of 10

7. Additionally, as regardstheissueofmultiplier, this Court in Sanju (supra) assessed a line of judgments including Kajal (supra), Master Ayush (supra) BabySakshiGreola v. ManzoorAhmadSimon 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692, KarunaParmarv. Prakash Sinha 2025INSC 1244, in detail.

8. Further, reliance was placed upon decisions by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pooja 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1044, Rakesh Sharma v. Ashok 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1364 and Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhupan Paswan 2025 SCC OnLineDel 1045, wherein a multiplierof18 was adopted after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court.

9. The relevant observationsmadeby this Court in Sanju (supra) are extracted as under:

“26. In my view, the argument, at least before this Court, is foreclosed by the judgments in Pooja, Rakesh Sharma, and Bhupan Paswan, where the multiplier 18 has been adopted after considering the judgments in Sarla Verma, Kajal, Master Ayush, and Sakshi Greola. The discussion on this aspect in Bhupan Paswan reads as follows: “31. The learned Tribunal has computed the compensation by applying a multiplier of 15, by considering the age of the deceased. 32. The calculation of Multiplier has been laid down in the case of Sarla Varma (Supra) as under:- “21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 6 of 10 17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M- 15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.”

14,871 characters total

33. Evidently, the Judgment is silent on the multiplier to be used for the victims under 15 years of age. This incongruity in the matter of selection of multiplier in the case of personsin the age group up to 15 years was noted in by the Apex the case of Divya vs. National InsuranceCompanyLtd., Civil AppealNo. 7605/2022.

34. In the most recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon & Anr., SLP (C) No. 10996/2018, while referring to the judgmentsof Kajal(supra) and Master Ayush (supra), the Apex Court has applied the multiplier of 18 for a minor.

35. Thus, in light of the above judgments, this Court deems it appropriateto ascertain the Multiplier as ‘18’ to calculate the loss of dependency is calculated accordingly.” As noted above, the SupremeCourtdeclined special leave to appeal against this judgment.

27. Having regard to the binding judgment of the Coordinate Bench, which considers Sarla Verma, I am of the view that the applicable multiplier in such cases would be 18.”

10. Takinga similar view, this Courtin Mukesh Kumar (supra), while dealing with an appealfiled by the InsuranceCompany on thegroundthat the Tribunal while assessing loss of dependency in case of death of a minor child had erred by taking the multiplier of 18, instead of 15, and that income of the deceased should either be determined on the basis of MAC.APP. 1004/2018 7 of 10 notionalincomeor that ofan unskilled worker, dismissed the said appeal and held as under: “22.[6] Analysing all these decisions, this Court in Sanju (supra) held the view, as extracted above in paragraph 14, that the applicable multiplier would be 18 and that minimum wages of a skilled worker of the concerned State would be applicable.

23. In view of the above discussion, contention of appellant cannot be accepted.”

11. Therefore, in light of the above decisions, considering that the minimum wages of a skilled worker in Delhi at that time of accident were Rs. 8,528/-, the same shall have to be accounted for. Multiplier of 18, instead of 10, shall be considered.

12. Future prospects will be awarded at 40%, considering that the claimant was below 40 years ofage, in line with theparameters provided in NationalInsuranceCo. Ltd. v. PranaySethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and further relied upon by the Supreme Court in Hitesh Nagjibhai Patel v. BababhaiNagjibhaiRabari, 2025INSC 1070,which dealt with an injury claim of a minor child.

13. As regards non-pecuniaryloss,theSupremeCourtin Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343 has stated in paragraph 6 as under:

“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in

personal injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

MAC.APP. 1004/2018 8 of 10 (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

(iii) Future medical expenses.

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/orloss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation willbe granted underany of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/orloss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.”

14. The Tribunalhas awarded compensation under the head of loss of studies, which shallnot subsistin terms ofthe view taken by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra).

15. Considering that she was young girl, non-pecuniary damages for diminishing prospects of marriage may be enhanced to Rs.2,50,000/-.

16. As far as the other non-pecuniaryheads of losses are concerned, in thesecircumstances,theCourtconsidersit necessary to increase the nonpecuniary damages for pain and suffering, which shouldbeRs. 1,50,000/and loss of enjoyment/expectation of life should be Rs. 2,00,000/-.

17. Mr. Rajeev M. Roy, Counsel for respondent no.1/Insurance MAC.APP. 1004/2018 9 of 10 Company states that contributory negligence ought to have been considered. However, no cross-appeal has been filed by respondent no.1/InsuranceCompany and this aspectcannotbetaken up merely on an oral submission.

18. Revised computation, therefore, is as under: Sr. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal Awarded by this Court PECUNIARY LOSS

1 Expenditure on treatment (A) Rs. 11,481/- Rs. 11,481/- 2 Expenditure on conveyance (B) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/- 3 Expenditure on special diet (C) Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 20,000/-

4. Income of injured (D) Rs. 15,000/- (notional income) Rs. 8,528/- (per month)

5. Add: Future prospects @ 40% (E) - Rs. 3,411/-

6. Multiplier (F) 10 18

7 Functional disability (G) 55% 55% 8 Loss of future income/future earnings [(D + E) x 12 x (F) x G] = (H) Rs. 2,12,356.50/- Rs. 14,18,353/- NON-PECUNIARY LOSS

11 Loss of marriage prospects (J) Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 2,50,000/- 12 Loss of enjoyment of life (K) Rs. 1,50,000/- Rs. 2,00,000/-

13 Total compensation (A + B + C + H + I + J + K) = L Rs. 8,14,000/- (Rs. 8,13,837.[5] rounded off) Rs. 20,70,000/- (Rs. 20,69,834 rounded off)

19. Enhanced amountofcompensation alongwith interest at therate of MAC.APP. 1004/2018 10 of 10 9% from the date of filing of petition will be deposited by respondent no.1/Insurance Company before the Tribunal within 4 weeks.

20. It is directed that a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be released to the claimant within a period of two weeks thereafter. The remaining amount, along with accrued interest, shall be kept in Fixed DepositReceipts (FDRs) of Rs. 25,000/- each for periods of 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and so on, in succession as may be calculated. The interest accruing on the said FDRs shall be credited to the designated Savings BankAccountofthe claimant. Theamountof FDRs on maturity would be released to the Savings Bank Account of claimant upon due verification.

21. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned MACT.

22. Appeal stands disposed of with above directions.

23. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

24. Statutory deposit, if any, be refunded to appellant.

25. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 18, 2026/mk/sp

Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv v. RELIENCE GEN INS CO LTD & ORS

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation